Victory conditions

[Blashy]

What do you mean that Japs & Germans couldn't have won? That's a bunch of hogwash. They owned half the planet. A few adjustments in strategy (Midway, Stalingrad) and they could have kept momentum.

JJvR is being satirical .

[xwormwood]

When it comes to invading the US you should consider that invading alone would create the chance for the invader to do maximum damage.

What i mean is the following:

think of 9/11. Let our japanese invaders bomb skyscrapers for two weeks instead of crashing two (large) planes into one building.

I think you get the picture.

Than let them destroy or blockade some of the largest US ports while holding Hawaii.

This should gain the japs some time to do havoc on the british in burma / india or against the ANZAC. Maybe even to give them enough breath to do china.

Of course Japan would have always lost an invasion against the US.

I think the A-Bomb argument is a point against Japan, but on the other hand the US needed until summer of 1945 to get 3 bombs, so Nippon and Germany had some time to settle the one or the other thing until than.

Maybe it would have been possible to drive the UK out of the war (even though i don't think that food shortage alone would have brought the UK to its knees in 1942. Even Imperial germany was able to fight 4 years of WW1 with little and even less food).

[SeaMonkey]

test post......as I just lost the one defining "Axis Marginal Victory"

[SeaMonkey]

Forget it...lost the second one too, ....maybe another time????

[arado234]

The way I see it that if by 1942 the Axis didnt have Russia and England kaput(an extremely difficult task to have pulled off) then they were going to be kaput no matter what.To much Allied firepower.

[SeaMonkey]

That's exactly it A234, they bit off more than they could chew.

See, Germany didn't really need to DoW the USSR, Stalin could be intimidated. Think about the diplomatic clout Hitler would have had if UK had surrendered or borne a successful invasion.

What a monumental mistake Hitler made DoWing USA after Pearl Harbor. The Germans could have very well taken advantage of the isolationist view that the USA citizenry had at the time.

Does anyone doubt that with Germany's full focus on taking out the UK that they could not at least have achieved an armistice?

Now FDR and Churchill are another matter....for shrewd diplomacy, they really make things interesting, ideolists always do!

[Retributar]

To 'SeaMonkey'_'WormWood' & All!,...Thank's For Coming Out Of The Closet To Pummle/Fandangle 'Avante-Garde-Ideas' To Enhance/Enrichen The Game!.

I've been Too-Busy Working To Get Too Involved As Of This Time-Frame!,...I will have 7-Week's Off Soon...So I Expect To Participate More Then,...Than I Have Since June!.

Someone Has To Build These 'Tar-Sand-Projects!',...I Am Nearly Thoroughly Burned-Out As I Speak!.

[arado234]

SeaMonkey imho if Germany had planned from the start(fighters with longrange drop tanks,etc) to go allout after England then yes maybe they could have beaten them,but another big mistake the Axis made wasnot planning to"win"the war(maybe they didnt think they could).After Germany attacked France it was quite obvious after a few days France was done and yet they didnt really focus on the next task,defeating England.As soon as they realised they had the B.E.F.trapped(would have left Britain prettywell defenceless on land,plus Ultra wasnt a big factor yet)they should have planned a Para.drop onto English Airfiields to bring in airlanding troops.After the Allied debacle in Norway alot of Brits. werenot to happy with Churchill and if Germany landed Paras.onto England and started bringing in troops(like they did in Crete) it may have been enough for the Brits. to sue for peace(It would have been much easier for Germany to''bargin''with Britain from a position of strength).It would have been a big gamble for Germany but if they pulled it off then the whole course of the war changes.Weather Germany and Japan(I doubt it)would have worked together(another big mistake of the Axis)if that happened,who knows. leaving the Amis.out of the war as long as possible would also have been critical move.

[xwormwood]

Total victory like invading the USA shouldn't be a victory condition for Japan.

Much more it should be "achieve some major victories in Asia while doing an certain amount of damage to the US (while kicking the **** out of ANZAC, the UK, France and China).

This much success should enable Japan (after all) to achive some kind of peace talks with the US where the USA would / could grant Japan certain teritorial gains and trade rights in exchange for peace in which the US boys to could stay at home or return home.

Maybe there should be a score table for the Japanese player (?). Every great victory adds some points. After X points had been reached while the USA lost Y amount of troops and ships than Japan should be able to initate peace talks (we retreat from Hawaii, Midway, wake and Australie while we keep Chinese coastlines and lead an asiatic union (trade and defence) with members Burma, Philippines, Indonesia etc.

Japan would have never been able to force an unconditinal surrender from the US. It would always be only the question how much blood the US would be willing to sacrifice; as much blood as needed for a peace or even more blood for an unconditinal surrender.

I am talking about a what if scenario, not history as it happend.

[SeaMonkey]

Man...I knew you guys were getting it. One of the first pop-ups critical for decision making would be as Japan, "Do you wish to prosecute a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor?".

Think about that for a moment for without the mistake of a surprise attack do you think the USA may have been a bit more inclined to accept a less than unconditional surrender from Japan?

Remember historically it was not supposed to be a sneak attack.

Now further ... think about other decisions that were critical, like Germany's genocidal tendencies against USSR, that moved the entire Allied camp into that unconditional surrender ultimatum.

Could it have been different?

WW1 was concluded with a conditional armistice.

[SeaMonkey]

OK, now create a vision where there could be parity between the two combatants. Think about a diplomatic condition of where one side could accept certain viewpoints of the other before the war advanced to the degree of barbarism we are all familiar with..

Now also bring up a situation where through occupation and conquest, some diplomatic, some war based or threatened that could lead to an equity of resources.

Keep in mind this is for the global scale, we are moving beyond PTO here, this is for the entire planet, 1936 to 1948 for instance.

Can you envision a set of circumstances based on the above definitions that might lead to a game conclusion of Axis victory without the fantasy of USA invasion?

Do you see the environment of a stand off where there is an Eastern Hemisphere dominated by the Axis offsetting the Western Hemisphere of Allied influence?

Could that conclusion be considered ...perhaps... a marginal Axis victory?

[arado234]

SeaMonkey and xwormwood I get what your saying.For victory conditons in this game they make total sense.

[Hubert Cater]

Gentlemen, not to worry as much of what has been written here has been taken into account for the final Victory Conditions.

Bill has done an excellent job of including a variety of Victory Conditions for Japan ranging from Strategic to Tactical but at the same time we did include a single Decisive Victory condition that includes knocking out the USA. Why? Well, while not necessarily historically accurate and likely to only come into play for AI players, it was important to include a condition for those players that enjoy taking over the whole map without the game ending prematurely. Essentially we needed to take into account all playing styles as well as the historical context of the era and I think the current Victory Conditions achieve just that .

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[AZGungHo]

Hubert,

I understand your reasoning and agree with it. But I do have a couple of questions if you have time to answer them:

1) Is there a decisive victory condition for the USA? Or only for Japan?

2) Would a roughly historical outcome be considered a Strategic Victory for the USA (Allies)?

Thanks - can't wait for this one!!!

[Hubert Cater]

AZGungHo,

Without giving it all away prior to release, both your points are taken into account as well

Hubert

[xwormwood]

I think that "the US surrendering to Japan" shouldn't be possible in the game.

In my eyes this result of the conflict would be absolutly unthinkable, and quite right impossible.

Let us AI-players conquer every free tile (sigh) of the US, yes of course, but please have mercy, spare us a "the USA surenders" message. PLEASE!

"The US agree to start peace talks", "the US accept Japan domination in South East Asia", i don't care, let these messages come, but please not "the the USA surrenders" message.

It is highly unlikly that Germany with all its european vassals would have ever been able to force the US to its knees (maybe in 1750), but how much more unlikely would it have been for Japan?

And maybe you COULD surrender to an european country, but to an asiatic country in 1945? I can imagine a world where people with german, french or english roots might surrender to the land of their forefathers, but not to a country which has such a complete differnt culture. These invaders would always stay "the barbarians" or the "the monsters".

Come on, give us something better. i know you can do it, you have the brain power to create something more advanced than this old and absurd "the USA surrenders".

Go wild, go creative.

We will love you for this, i promise!

[SeaMonkey]

I'm with you xww, a USA surrender is no plausible than it is today. But remember, its just a game, and besides, knowing we are on the same page, let's concentrate our efforts for a realistic what-if Global SC.

So....HC...when does the coding start?

[arado234]

I like the idea of the Amis. surrendering only because it keeps the Allied player from just abandoning the mainland.If the Japanese player is able to pull it off against the A.I.or human player then great.Its should never be a problem so having it a possibility shouldnt matter.In reality it was never possible for Japan to pull it off.

As far as Germany being able to do it,they were developing a I.C.B.M.that would be able to hit America.Without a nuclear or some type of biological or chemical warhead it wouldnt have had any real effect but with those type warheads it may have.

Way off topic but I have to mention this.Im reading a book called:The German wars.It starts in the mid 1800s.Its basiclly about the the stupidity of man and how politics and bad decisions for one reason or another gets alot of people killed.Ive just read up to the end of 1915 and in that year alone on the western front there were over 2 million total battle casualties and the Allies gained a grand total of 8 square miles.People sure are dumb.

[scottsmm]

8 square miles is about 2 towns combined, and to only get that for 2 million people is simply beyond absurd. Just out of curiosity arado234 could you tell me what happens in 1918? Just so people can compare that to 1915.

[Hubert Cater]

xwormwood, honestly not to worry as it is not a *required* condition for a Japanese victory at all.

As I mentioned before there are quite a few appropriately designated STRATEGIC and TACTICAL victories scripted for the Japanese player that take into account the full historical context of the time and really the only reason this single DECISIVE victory condition was added was to give players the option to continue playing once they achieve their STRATEGIC or TACTICAL victories without the game ending prematurely. I guarantee you that there are players who, for example, once they conquer China and British India may want to take the fight to the Americans (without the game automatically ending) no matter how futile that endeavor may be and we need to take that into account. This allows Japanese players to play to the campaign end date and if they are not able to go any further they can still win the game if the appropriate STRATEGIC or TACTICAL victory has been achieved.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

P.S. I should add that even though the condition exists, considering supply, distances, and the manpower and resources available to the US, it will be a real challenge to pull it off (close to impossible), against the AI or otherwise

[scottsmm]

Hubert Carter my guess is the vets will be able to pull it off against the AI and novice skilled other players after that though it's a crapshoot.

[Hubert Cater]

scottsmm, you might be surprised as this is a very different game from the European Theater but of course I'll never say never

[scottsmm]

Yes I'm sure it's different, but I can't imagine it's totally different, and if it isn't I bet people like yourself, moon, etc could beat the US outright by being Japan.

[Retributar]

~QUOTE: 'By...scottsmm' _ "Yes I'm sure it's different, but I can't imagine it's totally different, and if it isn't I bet people like yourself, moon, etc could beat the US outright by being Japan".~

That's What i also plan to do!. What-If The Japanese had withdrawn their main forces from 'China',...and were then able to reconstruct/reconstitute those forces, into amphibious invasion forces_[Depending On How They Would/Could Have Planned Out The War]...then...maybey an invasion of the American-Shores would have be possible!. To what extent you say & why?,...well!,...of course with the intention of so redirecting American effort's to protect the U.S.A., instead of the U.S. forces being totally preoccupied with the Pacific!.

This...then could perhap's buy some time for other Japanese forces to have the opportunity to capture & consolidate stategic vital areas [Resources] to help the Japanese maintain the war-effort/machine to accomplish their objective of controlling the Pacific & winning the war or achieving a reduced victory out of it!.

Whether this new game will allow anything like this or not i do not know!. However!,...this is what i would like to try out!,...to see what happen's!.

[Blashy]

On DDay the Allies had the best amphibious technology on hand and they STILL had to cross the channel at the perfect time in transports and then onto amphibious transports.

Taking PH itself was almost an impossibility because of that alone... mainland USA, no a chance in "what if" reality.